Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→A simple formulation: reverting ASF section to version by QuackGuru at 01:05, 20 April 2010 . I actually like a lot of the newer changes, but QuackGuru is right that consensus should be sought. |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) m tweak |
||
| (40 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{pp-semi-indef}} |
{{pp-semi-indef}} |
||
{{policy|WP:NPOV|WP:NPV|WP:NEU}} |
{{policy|WP:NPOV|WP:NPV|WP:NEU}} |
||
{{nutshell| |
{{nutshell|Articles must represent all majority- and significant-minority views fairly, proportionately, and in a disinterested tone.}} |
||
{{Content policy list}} |
{{Content policy list}} |
||
[[File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-600px-en.ogv|thumb|thumbtime=63|thumb|Video explaining the concepts of "Neutral point of view" and "Verifiability" (2 minutes 10 seconds, 11 MB).]] |
[[File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-600px-en.ogv|thumb|thumbtime=63|thumb|Video explaining the concepts of "Neutral point of view" and "Verifiability" (2 minutes 10 seconds, 11 MB).]] |
||
'''Neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV''') is |
'''Neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV''') is one of Wikimedia's [[meta:Foundation issues|founding principles]], and a [[WP:5P|cornerstone of Wikipedia]]. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all majority- and significant-minority views that have been [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|published by reliable sources]]. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and editors. |
||
Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. |
|||
== |
==Explaining the neutral point of view== |
||
[[image:Wikipedia scale of justice.png|thumb|right|200px|Wikipedia is governed by the principle of [[impartiality]].]] |
|||
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material [[WP:PRESERVE|should not be removed]] ''solely'' on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened, moved to a new article, or even [[WP:HANDLE|removed]] entirely on the grounds that it gives [[#Undue weight|undue weight]] to a minor point of view, as explained below. |
|||
{{Policy shortcut|WP:YESPOV|WP:ASF}} |
|||
The neutral point of view is a way of dealing with conflicting perspectives. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views as found in reliable sources be presented in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Material [[WP:PRESERVE|should not be removed]] just because it is not neutral, or what Wikipedians call "pov". |
|||
{{Policy shortcut|WP:YESPOV}} |
|||
The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a ''lack'' of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, ''editorially neutral'', point of view. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides. |
|||
===Bias=== |
|||
Neutrality requires that views be represented without bias. All editors and reliable sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine the views of the sources to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the disinterested description of all significant sides of a debate as published by those sources. |
|||
===A simple formulation=== |
|||
{{Policy shortcut|WP:ASF}} |
|||
'''Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves'''. By "[[fact]]" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a [[planet]] called [[Mars]] is a fact. That [[Plato]] was a [[philosopher]] is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we ''assert'' as many of them as possible. A [[fact]] can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An [[opinion]] can be attributed to so-and-so said. |
|||
By [[Value (personal and cultural)|value]] or [[opinion]],<ref>Opinions involve both matters of fact and value; see [[fact-value distinction]]</ref> on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That [[stealing]] is wrong is a value or opinion. That [[The Beatles]] were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a [[nuclear weapon]] during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki, Nagasaki|Nagasaki]] is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be [[meta:borderline case|borderline cases]] (see [[#Undue weight|Undue weight]]) where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included. |
|||
When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as ''Rolling Stone'' magazine and say: "''Rolling Stone'' said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the [[UK Singles Chart]]" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources. |
|||
The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. Unbiased writing is the disinterested description of all significant sides of a debate as found in reliable sources. Articles should describe different points of view without endorsing any of them. It may describe the criticism of particular viewpoints found in reliable sources, but it should not take sides. Good research can prevent NPOV disagreements by using the best sources available and accurately summarizing what they say. |
|||
In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of [[WP:PARITY|parity]]. For example, to state that "according to [[Simon Wiesenthal]], the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but [[David Irving]] disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] require that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a [[WP:SOURCE|reliable source]] in the form of an |
|||
It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".<ref name="avoid weasels">See also: [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]], [[Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms]].</ref> A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations|inline citation]], and that the source directly support the material in question. Where a statement is controversial or subjective, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice. Avoid mass attribution such as "some people believe": see [[Wikipedia:Words to watch|Words to watch]]. |
|||
Articles should contain balanced coverage of all majority and significant-minority views, but make sure they [[WP:UNDUE|roughly reflect]] the relative levels of support among reliable sources for the position in question. Do not write: "Charles Darwin argued that humankind evolved from apes, but Keith's mum thinks we came from another planet." Appropriate weight must be given to each view, so that it is clear what status the majority and significant-minority views have among reliable sources. If the topic has attracted [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] or tiny-minority views, consider writing about those views in articles devoted to them, so long as there are reliable secondary sources to support inclusion. |
|||
A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|cite]] a prominent representative of the view. |
|||
==Achieving neutrality== |
==Achieving neutrality== |
||
===Article titles and structure=== |
|||
:''See [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial]] and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples]] |
|||
{{main|Wikipedia:Article titles}} |
|||
:''Main policy page: [[Wikipedia:Article titles]]'' |
|||
[[image:Wikipedia scale of justice.png|thumb|right|200px|Wikipedia is governed by the principle of [[impartiality]].]] |
|||
A Wikipedia article must have one definitive title.<ref>Note, however, that [[WP:Redirect|redirects]] may be used to address this technical limitation in situations where non-controversial synonyms and variations in word morphology exist.</ref> The general restriction against [[WP:Content forking#What forking is|POV forks]] applies to article titles as well. If a genuine titling controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article titles should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article titles, in the form of: ''Flat Earth/Round Earth''; or ''Flat Earth (Round Earth).''<ref>See also: [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)|Choosing geographic names]], [[Wikipedia:Article titles]].</ref> Even if a synthesis is made, like ''Shape of the Earth'', or ''Earth (debated shapes)'', it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork. |
|||
Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper [[contextualization|context]]. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming ''"Criticisms of drugs"'' to ''"Societal views on drugs"''). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. |
|||
Where [[proper nouns]] such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used as (or in) an article title. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the [[WP:TITLE#COMMONNAME|common English language name]] as found in [[WP:SOURCES|verifiable reliable sources]]; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms – such as [[Boston massacre]], [[Tea Pot Dome scandal]], [[Edward the Confessor]], [[Jack the Ripper]] – are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. |
|||
===Article structure=== |
|||
{{Policy shortcut|WP:STRUCTURE}} |
{{Policy shortcut|WP:STRUCTURE}} |
||
Titles should follow the [[Wikipedia:Article titles|Article titles]] policy and be neutral wherever possible. [[WP:Redirect|Redirects]] can be used to address situations where a topic is known by several names. Where the name of a topic is part of the debate, discussion should be included in the article using reliable sources. The policy against [[WP:Content forking#What forking is|content forking]] applies to article titles too. |
|||
:''See the guideline [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]] for clarification on the issues raised in this section.'' |
|||
Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like ''POV forking'' and ''undue weight''. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, in some cases the article structure may need attention. Care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral. |
|||
Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.<ref>Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and "pro and con" sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see [[Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode]], [[Wikipedia:Criticism]], [[Wikipedia:Pro and con lists]], and [[Template:Criticism-section]].</ref> It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false — an implication that may not be appropriate. A more neutral approach can result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other. |
|||
Exercise caution in how you structure the text, and what titles you use for section headers. Sections devoted to criticism, and "pro and con" sections, can be problematic: there are differing views as to whether such structures are appropriate.<ref>See [[Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode]], [[Wikipedia:Criticism]], [[Wikipedia:Pro and con lists]], and [[Template:Criticism-section]].</ref> Avoid formatting that may favor a particular point of view, or that may make it difficult for the reader to assess the credibility of each position.<ref>Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate", and content structured like a "resume". See also: [[Wikipedia:Guide to layout]], [[Wikipedia:Criticism#Formatting criticism|Formatting criticism]], [[Wikipedia:Edit war]], [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Contradiction and confusion|WP cleanup templates]], and [[Template:Lopsided]].</ref> |
|||
===<span id="DUE" /><span id="UNDUE" /><span id="WEIGHT" />Undue weight=== |
===<span id="DUE" /><span id="UNDUE" /><span id="WEIGHT" />Undue weight=== |
||
{{Policy shortcut|WP:DUE|WP:UNDUE|WP:Undue weight|WP:WEIGHT|WP:UNDUEWEIGHT|WP:PROMINENCE}} |
{{Policy shortcut|WP:DUE|WP:UNDUE|WP:Undue weight|WP:WEIGHT|WP:UNDUEWEIGHT|WP:PROMINENCE}} |
||
{{see|WP:FRINGE}} |
|||
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources. An article's coverage of individual events or opinions involving its subject may be [[WP:V|verifiable]] and [[#Impartial tone|impartial]], but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic. This is an important consideration when reporting on [[WP:RECENT|recent events]] that may be in the [[WP:NOTNEWS|news]]. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. |
|||
Neutral point of view requires that articles fairly represent all majority and significant-minority positions that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each. In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within reliable published sources, not among Wikipedians or the general public. |
|||
Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|reliable sources]], and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views ''as much'' or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the [[Earth]] should not mention modern support for the [[Flat Earth]] concept, the view of a distinct minority. |
|||
In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, it is appropriate to give the viewpoint more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as [[flat earth]], with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader. [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories]] and [[WP:NPOV/FAQ|the NPOV F.A.Q.]] provide additional advice on these points. |
|||
Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views ''in proportion to their representation in reliable sources'' on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. |
|||
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, ''not'' its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. |
|||
If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been reliably published elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. |
|||
==== Giving "equal validity" ==== |
|||
{{Policy shortcut|WP:GEVAL|WP:VALID}} |
|||
The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal validity to minority views. Doing so would legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy. |
|||
===A vital component: good research=== |
|||
Good and unbiased research, based upon the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|best and most reputable authoritative sources]] available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. |
|||
===Balance=== |
|||
Neutrality [[WP:WEIGHT|weights]] viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and ''are'' relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. |
|||
===Impartial tone=== |
|||
Wikipedia ''describes'' disputes. Wikipedia does not ''engage'' in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries ''even while'' presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. |
|||
The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except in articles devoted to them, so long as reliable secondary sources exist that describe those views. For example, the article [[Earth]] should not mention modern support for the flat earth theory, but a separate article, [[Flat Earth]], can be created if sources can be found for it. In articles about a minority viewpoint, the majority view should also be explained, so long as the distinction is discussed by reliable sources, so that the reader understands how the minority view differs from it. |
|||
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. |
|||
Undue weight can occur in several ways, including depth of detail, length of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The same principle applies to images, wikilinks, external links, and categories. |
|||
===Characterizing opinions of people's work=== |
|||
A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Some Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g. musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But it is important indeed to note how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to note worthy individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. Public and scholarly critique of an artist or work, when well-researched and verifiable, helps to put the work into context and enhances the credibility of the article; idiosyncratic opinions of individual Wikipedia contributors, however, do not. |
|||
===Words to |
===Words to watch=== |
||
{{See |
{{See|Wikipedia:Words to watch}} |
||
Some words carry non-neutral implications. For example, the word ''claim'' can imply that a statement is incorrect, such as ''John claimed he had not eaten the pie.'' |
Some words carry non-neutral implications. For example, the word ''claim'' can imply that a statement is incorrect, such as ''John claimed he had not eaten the pie.'' Try to present different views without using biased words: for example, ''John said he had not eaten the pie.'' Similarly, it is sometimes appropriate to make clear that, for example, Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language, but make sure this really is the view of multiple sources, and not only of Wikipedians. |
||
==Neutrality disputes |
==Neutrality disputes== |
||
===Attribution=== |
|||
===Attributing and specifying biased statements=== |
|||
{{main|Wikipedia:No original research|Wikipedia:Verifiability}} |
|||
{{Policy shortcut|WP:SUBSTANTIATE|WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV}} |
{{Policy shortcut|WP:SUBSTANTIATE|WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV}} |
||
All material added to an article must be attributable, which means that a reliable published source must exist for it—otherwise it is [[WP:NOR|original research]]. But not all material must actually be attributed. Some statements—such as "Paris is the capital of France"—are so commonly accepted that no one expects attribution. But they remain attributable, and if there is the slightest controversy, they are easy to find sources for. The more controversial a view, the more important it is that we provide attribution, and in many cases multiple attribution. Controversies on talk pages are indicative of controversies in the real world, so whenever there is a conflict on the talk page it is critical that editors provide attribution from reliable sources. |
|||
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]], requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a [[WP:SOURCES|reliable source]] in the form of an |
|||
A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth. It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view. It is therefore important to [[wp:verifiability|verify]] it and make every effort possible to add an appropriate [[WP:Citing sources|citation]]. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations|inline citation]], and that the source directly support the material in question. |
|||
=== Point-of-view and content forks === |
|||
For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion; it cannot be included in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about the fact that someone holds an opinion, e.g.: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be [[WP:V|verified]]. The goal here is to ''attribute'' the opinion to some recognized subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true. |
|||
{{see|Wikipedia:Content forking|Wikipedia:Summary style}} |
|||
''Content forks'' are multiple articles about the same subject. A ''point-of-view fork'' (POV fork) is a deliberate attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already being treated, often to avoid or highlight certain positions. Both are considered unacceptable. [[WP:Summary style|Summary style]] spin-offs are acceptable, and often encouraged, but take care not to split topics up in a way that might compromise neutrality. |
|||
==Common objections== |
|||
A different approach is to ''specify'' the statement, by giving underlying details that are undisputed. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this. |
|||
{{see|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ}} |
|||
The NPOV policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers, but it is central to Wikipedia's approach, so most issues surrounding it have been covered very extensively. If you have a new contribution to make to the debate, you could try [[Talk:Neutral point of view]]. Before doing that, please review the FAQ page, and the policies, guidelines, and essays listed in the See also section [[WP:NPOV#See also|below]]. |
|||
There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with [[weasel words]]: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By ''attributing'' the claim to a known authority, or ''substantiating'' the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.<ref name="avoid weasels" /> |
|||
=== Point of view (POV) and content forks === |
|||
:''See the guideline [[Wikipedia:Content forking]] for clarification on the issues raised in this section.'' |
|||
A ''content fork'' is a usually unintentional creation of multiple articles all treating the same subject. A ''point of view fork'' is a deliberate attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already being treated, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both are considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on the same subject are treated in one article. |
|||
It is vital to note that this does ''not'' rule out separate articles on related but distinct subjects if there is enough information about each subject to justify a separate article. For example, [[Evolution]], [[Evolution as theory and fact]], [[Creationism]], and [[Creationism-evolution controversy]] are all separate. This is fine because these articles deal with merely related but not identical subjects, each of which has been determined to be independently notable. [[WP:Summary_style|Spin-offs]] are another case of related but distinct articles: they are not only justified but are a central part of Wikipedia's structure. Whether distinctions between topics are sufficiently large and each topic notable enough to justify separate articles must be decided on a case by case basis. |
|||
=== Making necessary assumptions === |
|||
{{Policy shortcut|WP:MNA}} |
|||
When writing any of a long series of articles on some general subject, there can be cases where we must make some potentially controversial assumptions. For example, in writing about evolution, it's not helpful to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that ''someone'' would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc. |
|||
It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some ''other'' page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however. |
|||
==Fringe theories == |
|||
{{see|WP:FRINGE}} |
|||
Notable fringe views may be discussed in articles devoted to them. In some cases, they may also be briefly discussed in related articles (per [[WP:UNDUE]]). When discussing fringe views, any mention of them should be proportionate, making clear which is the dominant majority view among reliable sources, and which are minority views. |
|||
==Common objections and clarifications== |
|||
:''See [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ]] for answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section.'' |
|||
Common objections or concerns raised to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy include the following. |
|||
;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Being neutral|Being neutral]]: |
;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Being neutral|Being neutral]]: |
||
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity|There's no such thing as objectivity]]''<br /> |
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity|There's no such thing as objectivity]]''<br />Everyone with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? |
||
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete|Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete]]''<br />The neutrality policy is |
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete|Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete]]''<br />The neutrality policy is sometimes used as an excuse to delete text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? |
||
;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views|Balancing different views]]: |
;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views|Balancing different views]]: |
||
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the "opponent"|Writing for the "opponent"]]''<br />I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent." I don't want to write for the opponent. My opponents |
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the "opponent"|Writing for the "opponent"]]''<br />I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent." I don't want to write for the opponent. My opponents make claims that I believe are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral, I have to ''lie''? |
||
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally offensive views|Morally offensive views]]''<br />What about views |
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally offensive views|Morally offensive views]]''<br />What about views most Westerners find morally offensive, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial? Surely we are not to be neutral about ''them''? |
||
;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Editorship disputes|Editorship disputes]]: |
;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Editorship disputes|Editorship disputes]]: |
||
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Dealing with biased contributors|Dealing with biased contributors]]''<br />I agree with the |
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Dealing with biased contributors|Dealing with biased contributors]]''<br />I agree with the NPOV policy, but there are some here who seem irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do? |
||
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Avoiding constant disputes|Avoiding constant disputes]]''<br />How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues? |
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Avoiding constant disputes|Avoiding constant disputes]]''<br />How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues? |
||
| Line 145: | Line 81: | ||
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Other objections|Other objections]]''<br />I have some other objection—where should I complain? |
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Other objections|Other objections]]''<br />I have some other objection—where should I complain? |
||
==See also== |
|||
Since the neutral-point-of-view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Wikipedia's approach—many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try [[Talk:Neutral point of view]], or bring it up on the [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists|Wikipedia-l]] mailing list. Before asking it, please review the links below. |
|||
{{refbegin|2}} |
|||
;Content policies |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] |
|||
;Guidelines |
|||
==See also== |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Article size|Article size]] |
|||
===Policies and essays=== |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|Conflict of interest]] |
|||
<div style="-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Controversial articles|Controversial articles]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories|Fringe theories]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid|Words to avoid]] |
|||
;Essays |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Coatrack|Coatrack]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Describing points of view|Describing points of view]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Let the reader decide|Let the reader decide]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:List of controversial issues|List of controversial issues]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial|NPOV tutorial]] |
* [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial|NPOV tutorial]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ|NPOV FAQ]] |
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ|NPOV FAQ]] |
||
* [[/Examples/|NPOV Examples]] |
* [[/Examples/|NPOV Examples]] |
||
* [[/Examples Debate/|NPOV Examples debate]] |
|||
* [[:Category:NPOV disputes|NPOV Disputes]] |
* [[:Category:NPOV disputes|NPOV Disputes]] |
||
* [[Meta:Positive tone|Positive tone]] (meta, historical) |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Scientific consensus|Scientific consensus]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Systemic bias|Systematic bias]] |
|||
* [[Meta:Responses to How to Build Wikipedia, Understand Bias|Understand Bias]] (meta, historical) |
|||
;Articles |
|||
* [[Meta:Responses to How to Build Wikipedia, Understand Bias|Understand Bias]] - (meta, historical) |
|||
* [[Meta:Positive tone|Positive tone]] - (meta, historical) |
|||
* [[Objectivity (journalism)]] |
* [[Objectivity (journalism)]] |
||
* [[Consensus reality]] |
* [[Consensus reality]] |
||
| Line 164: | Line 114: | ||
* [[Subject-object problem]] |
* [[Subject-object problem]] |
||
;Templates |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Article size]] |
|||
*{{tl|POV}} or {{tl|Bias}}—message used to warn of problems |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms]] |
|||
*{{tl|POV-check}}—message used to request that an article be checked for neutrality |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]] |
|||
*{{tl|POV-section}}—tags only a single section as disputed |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Coatrack]] |
|||
*{{tl|POV-lead}}—when the article's introduction is questionable |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] |
|||
*{{tl|POV-title}}—when the article's title is questionable |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Controversial articles]] |
|||
*{{tl|POV-statement}}—when only one sentence is questionable |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Describing points of view]] |
|||
*{{tl|NPOV language}}—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories]] |
|||
*{{tl|undue}}—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Let the reader decide]] |
|||
*{{tl|undue-inline}}—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:List of controversial issues]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Scientific consensus]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Systemic bias]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
;Wikiproject |
|||
===Templates=== |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality|Wikiproject Neutrality]] |
|||
*General NPOV templates: |
|||
{{refend}} |
|||
**{{tl|POV}} or {{tl|Bias}}—message used to warn of problems |
|||
**{{tl|POV-check}}—message used to request that an article be checked for neutrality |
|||
**{{tl|POV-section}}—tags only a single section as disputed |
|||
**{{tl|POV-lead}}—when the article's introduction is questionable |
|||
**{{tl|POV-title}}—when the article's title is questionable |
|||
**{{tl|POV-statement}}—when only one sentence is questionable |
|||
**{{tl|NPOV language}}—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned |
|||
*Undue weight templates: |
|||
**{{tl|undue}}—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole |
|||
**{{tl|undue-inline}}—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only |
|||
==Notes== |
==Notes== |
||
Revision as of 16:34, 23 April 2010
 |
 | This page in a nutshell: Articles must represent all majority- and significant-minority views fairly, proportionately, and in a disinterested tone. |
Neutral point of view (NPOV) is one of Wikimedia's founding principles, and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all majority- and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and editors.
Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with Verifiability and No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.
Explaining the neutral point of view
The neutral point of view is a way of dealing with conflicting perspectives. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views as found in reliable sources be presented in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Material should not be removed just because it is not neutral, or what Wikipedians call "pov".
The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. Unbiased writing is the disinterested description of all significant sides of a debate as found in reliable sources. Articles should describe different points of view without endorsing any of them. It may describe the criticism of particular viewpoints found in reliable sources, but it should not take sides. Good research can prevent NPOV disagreements by using the best sources available and accurately summarizing what they say.
Verifiability and No original research require that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. Where a statement is controversial or subjective, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice. Avoid mass attribution such as "some people believe": see Words to watch.
Articles should contain balanced coverage of all majority and significant-minority views, but make sure they roughly reflect the relative levels of support among reliable sources for the position in question. Do not write: "Charles Darwin argued that humankind evolved from apes, but Keith's mum thinks we came from another planet." Appropriate weight must be given to each view, so that it is clear what status the majority and significant-minority views have among reliable sources. If the topic has attracted fringe or tiny-minority views, consider writing about those views in articles devoted to them, so long as there are reliable secondary sources to support inclusion.
Achieving neutrality
Article titles and structure
Titles should follow the Article titles policy and be neutral wherever possible. Redirects can be used to address situations where a topic is known by several names. Where the name of a topic is part of the debate, discussion should be included in the article using reliable sources. The policy against content forking applies to article titles too.
Exercise caution in how you structure the text, and what titles you use for section headers. Sections devoted to criticism, and "pro and con" sections, can be problematic: there are differing views as to whether such structures are appropriate.[1] Avoid formatting that may favor a particular point of view, or that may make it difficult for the reader to assess the credibility of each position.[2]
Undue weight
Neutral point of view requires that articles fairly represent all majority and significant-minority positions that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each. In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within reliable published sources, not among Wikipedians or the general public.
The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except in articles devoted to them, so long as reliable secondary sources exist that describe those views. For example, the article Earth should not mention modern support for the flat earth theory, but a separate article, Flat Earth, can be created if sources can be found for it. In articles about a minority viewpoint, the majority view should also be explained, so long as the distinction is discussed by reliable sources, so that the reader understands how the minority view differs from it.
Undue weight can occur in several ways, including depth of detail, length of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The same principle applies to images, wikilinks, external links, and categories.
Words to watch
Some words carry non-neutral implications. For example, the word claim can imply that a statement is incorrect, such as John claimed he had not eaten the pie. Try to present different views without using biased words: for example, John said he had not eaten the pie. Similarly, it is sometimes appropriate to make clear that, for example, Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language, but make sure this really is the view of multiple sources, and not only of Wikipedians.
Neutrality disputes
Attribution
All material added to an article must be attributable, which means that a reliable published source must exist for it—otherwise it is original research. But not all material must actually be attributed. Some statements—such as "Paris is the capital of France"—are so commonly accepted that no one expects attribution. But they remain attributable, and if there is the slightest controversy, they are easy to find sources for. The more controversial a view, the more important it is that we provide attribution, and in many cases multiple attribution. Controversies on talk pages are indicative of controversies in the real world, so whenever there is a conflict on the talk page it is critical that editors provide attribution from reliable sources.
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.
Point-of-view and content forks
Content forks are multiple articles about the same subject. A point-of-view fork (POV fork) is a deliberate attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already being treated, often to avoid or highlight certain positions. Both are considered unacceptable. Summary style spin-offs are acceptable, and often encouraged, but take care not to split topics up in a way that might compromise neutrality.
Common objections
The NPOV policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers, but it is central to Wikipedia's approach, so most issues surrounding it have been covered very extensively. If you have a new contribution to make to the debate, you could try Talk:Neutral point of view. Before doing that, please review the FAQ page, and the policies, guidelines, and essays listed in the See also section below.
- There's no such thing as objectivity
Everyone with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?
- Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
The neutrality policy is sometimes used as an excuse to delete text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
- Writing for the "opponent"
I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent." I don't want to write for the opponent. My opponents make claims that I believe are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral, I have to lie?
- Morally offensive views
What about views most Westerners find morally offensive, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?
- Dealing with biased contributors
I agree with the NPOV policy, but there are some here who seem irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?
- Avoiding constant disputes
How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?
- Anglo-American focus
Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?
- Other objections
I have some other objection—where should I complain?
See also
- Content policies
- Guidelines
- Essays
- Coatrack
- Describing points of view
- Let the reader decide
- List of controversial issues
- NPOV tutorial
- NPOV FAQ
- NPOV Examples
- NPOV Disputes
- Positive tone (meta, historical)
- Scientific consensus
- Systematic bias
- Understand Bias (meta, historical)
- Articles
- Templates
- {{POV}} or {{Bias}}—message used to warn of problems
- {{POV-check}}—message used to request that an article be checked for neutrality
- {{POV-section}}—tags only a single section as disputed
- {{POV-lead}}—when the article's introduction is questionable
- {{POV-title}}—when the article's title is questionable
- {{POV-statement}}—when only one sentence is questionable
- {{NPOV language}}—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned
- {{undue}}—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole
- {{undue-inline}}—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only
- Wikiproject
Notes
- ^ See Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, and Template:Criticism-section.
- ^ Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate", and content structured like a "resume". See also: Wikipedia:Guide to layout, Formatting criticism, Wikipedia:Edit war, WP cleanup templates, and Template:Lopsided.
External links
- NeutralPointOfView on MeatballWiki